Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

  • Does that sound unequivocal? I think I expressed the requisite number of doubts and reservations appropriate to academia. "Assuming there was no mistake" and assuming "the thing can be replicated." Those are assumptions, not assertions. When I say "my guess is that . . ." that really is a guess, not an assertion.


    You wrote the above cited mail to Vortex (1) the day after the January 14, 2011, demo. The phrases you quoted were the minimal precaution at that time, nevertheless your mail finished in one of the most assertive, unequivocal, and explosive way we can imagine: "There is no way you could fool the professors involved in this, and I am sure they are not all engaged in a conspiracy to fool the rest of us. Sometimes, a single test in isolation is so convincing it reduces or eliminates the need for independent replication. The most dramatic example in history was the Trinity atomic bomb test. This test is not quite as convincing as that, but in my opinion it is far more compelling than any other cold fusion test in history." (bold is mine)


    However, I do fully agree with your statement that "There is no way you could fool the professors involved in this". As you had already said in a previous mail to Vortex (2): "various professors at the university have been involved for some time, and they designed and implemented the calorimetry. I do not think there is any way Rossi could "fool" these people. I think that would be physically impossible." Exactly! It was "physically impossible", because, according to his words, Rossi was abroad in the weeks preceding the demo and went back to Italy only the day before the test.


    So, what's happened? Who did fake the experiment and the calorimetric data?


    Maybe you know the answer, Jed. In (1), you also revealed one of the most astonishingly fact about that demo. After only a few hours from the conclusion of the test, you "spoke with one of the people in the project about the calorimetry".


    How has it been possible? This is outside of any imaginable academic behavior. In fact, in a press release from the Department of Physics, issued on January 11, we can read (English translation by Krivit): "The test will be held by a researcher of the Physics Department of the University of Bologna, and will take place before a selected public of researchers and professors of the same Department. A confirmation of the amount of energy produced and of its origin would imply that we are dealing with new source of energy."


    So, the responsibility to announce to the world the existence and availability of a "new source of energy" was publicly assumed by the University. Moreover, as you reported in a subsequent mail to Vortex (3): "There were several people from Physics Department from Bologna University, Director included. Moreover, also the Director of Bologna Section of National Institute of Nuclear Physics attended, in almost official way, the demonstration. [...] All the measurements were made, INDEPENDENTLY, from a Researcher (and Technicians) of Bologna University. Rossi made only supervision about key safety aspects "


    How was it possible that "one of the people of the project" spoke with you after so short time revealing to you all the most important information "about the calorimetry"? Of course, I'm not going to ask you an answer, I know that you would reply that these are your businesses, but I'd invite all the readers here to pose themselves this question.


    Why the hell the physicists of the most ancient University of the western world should have felt the necessity to share the most sensible data of what could have been the most important experiment in the history of the physics, as well of the humankind, with an expert in programming and Japanese literature who lives on the other side of the Atlantic?


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41364.html"
    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41324.html"
    (3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg41536.html"


  • Why isn't Holmlid work in these databases. He is doing peer(american physical society) reviewed work for years now. He is open and published. WHAT GIVES

  • Perhaps you could be more clear. I have studied the Lugano report in extensive detail, and tested almost all information that is reported.
    I have reported extensively on my results, and given links, images, and references so that anyone can confirm my comments, should they so chose.


    Your obtuse answer suggests that you do not have a precise answer, and are just commenting with unsupported noise.


    Please look up the heat dissipated by the outer rods in calibration test/vs. active run. Then assume that the heatflow is linear because the diameter of the E-cat doesn't change...
    It's also possible to calculate the heat conduction constant of the e-cat and you will see that the rod's T (active run) is far to high - if You assume an ohm-heater (COP 1) - check the rods T in mfp video - compare it to the measured ones in Lugano - (which TC claimed are correct!!) and it will flash in in your head.


    That was the one big mistake of TC which lead finally to his assumption of a possible COP in the range of 1-4...


    Just don't believe in a COP of 1, this is baby logik. I do also not say that is was any higher than 2 . Further I do certainnly not invest any more time in a very bad work done by outaged "professionals".


    Bdw: If You look at Rossi's patent claims, (which were broadly rejected - see other thread) then You will see the same "hiding" pattern. This man has a very high degree of paranoia. Rossi will lose all his IP, because he is not ready to disclose his knowhow in the patent application. The same could be the reason for his dispute with IH!

  • CAM: "If you are lacking official recognition for 27 years, you don't even exist."


    CAM, 27 years are no time. It may take many decades for new discoveries to be accepted. And facts of science change over time.


    The physicist Max Planck seems to have summed up the issue with this maxim: “New scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”


    From the 1930's Until late 1990's it was an undeniable fact of science that gravity slowed down the expansion of our universe. If you theorised anything different it was laughed at.


    But then several observations told us that the universe is flying apart—faster and faster. It changed everything we ever knew about the cosmos.


    and here is something for everyone to read:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373380/

  • I am warning all people here about the difference between lenr-canr.org and EXFOR.

    "cam," an anonymous troll, has been making repetitively preposterous posts for some time now. Difference between lenr-canr.org and XFOR? Like, duh! Of course they are different.


    lenr-canr.org is a library of documents relevant to the LENR field. EXFOR is an "Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data (EXFOR)" library organized by specific reaction.


    For LENR, there is no specific known and identified and demonstrated reaction.


    Even the best known and most extensively confirmed experimental fact involves the conversion of deuterium to helium, but this is not a specific nuclear reaction, all that is known from confirmed experiment is that in a situation where deuterium is available as a possible fuel, an ash is produced, helium, at the ratio of heat to helium what would be expected if some reaction converts deuterium to helium with no "leakage," i.e., no other reaction products that do not end up as heat. (By conservation of momentum, probably, there must be a second product, but if it is, say, a burst of low-energy photons, coming from some intermediate nucleus or from helium itself, that would end up as heat, being entirely absorbed by the experimental apparatus and not readily detectable).


    Where would one put LENR data in EXFOR? If and when the underlying reactions are identified, then there would be something to put there. So far, there is only theory on this, with little experimental confirmation of the specific theorized mechanism.


    For now, though, we know that LENR is real and nuclear in nature because of confirmed direct evidence, the heat/helium correlation. That is on its way to getting confirmed with increased precision.


    But that still would not be eligible for EXFOR coverage.


    cam's view of science is ignorant.

  • LENR stands for Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions,


    I don't think "nano-scale" reaction has any scientific meaning does it? All reactions, whether chemical or nuclear occur at much smaller scales (atomic and sub-atomic scales). The term is confusing as most people have considered LENR to be about NUCLEAR reactions. My guess is that someone somewhere wanted to apply for funding and wanted to drop the contentious Nuclear for the more fashionable Nanoscale. The usual "not invented here" syndrome. Maybe @AlainCo can advise on the origin.

  • You can do the calculations here. Use 3 windows, with one each for the body, caps, and rods. I have tried this out for several uses, and it works very well. (Thanks to Slad for finding this site).
    The twisted heater wires stick out of the caps about 6 cm.


    thermal-wizard.com/tmwiz/conve…linder/horiz-cylinder.htm


    The problem is that Your calculator assumes isothermic behavior, what was never the case... The heat in the center is much higher than at the outside. Rossi LENR active tube was much shorter than the E-cat. Thus the driver (high reservoir) of the heatflow is not as hot as it should be to deliver more than 3x times the energy into the rods. Even if we assume heat transfer over the connecting wires.


    It's easy to grasp. If You dissipate energy with T4 then this part of the equation is dominating the calculation over a poor linear conductor!



    You can read one of my old posts - a response to TC. There I made an approximation.

  • @Hermes

    Quote

    My guess is that someone somewhere wanted to apply for funding and wanted to drop the contentious Nuclear for the more fashionable Nanoscale.


    Don't worry, you can find the acronim lenr only in this string: lenr-canr.org. It is only a ludicrous invention by some cold fusionist. Outside this Forum nobody knows the word lenr.

  • CAM " Outside this Forum nobody knows the word lenr."


    Wrong Again. As we can see from LENR-canr.org papers have been published many places, like in American Physical Society meetings. So LENR will be known by many mainstream scientists.t

  • I always thought it stood for 'Look Everybody, No Radiation'.


    The problem is, they don't look because there is no radiation. If only we could kill off a few grad students . . .


    (This refers to the "dead graduate student problem of cold fusion"; i.e. there are no dead grad students, like there aught to be according to theory.)

  • @axil


    Holmlid is Swedish. Perhaps you can trace him in Lund University database. Which work are you referring to?



    Does your databases include only the work of Italian science, or is it include science from everybody? In your science, who is the gatekeeper that decides whose work gets into the database? In your world, who decides what science is real. Holmlid's science is peer reviewed, and Holmlid can be found using the internet. Let me get things started with the first reference from a google search of "Holmlid":


    http://www2.chem.gu.se/~holmlid/


    Need more help, just sing out...

  • The problem is that Your calculator assumes isothermic behavior, what was never the case... The heat in the center is much higher than at the outside..... snip ..........You can read one of my old posts - a response to TC. There I made an approximation.


    I asked nicely for the link to the post, actually. The way we wander OT here, the specific response you are referring to could be anywhere. No hurry. I'll look for it myself when I get more time than I have currently.


    You can divide the tube into as many portions as you like. I have a spreadsheet that does that. The rods are more complex, but can be approximated to get you close to save you time, then done in detail, in sections. Just open even more windows of the calculator. I was easily able to calculate the rod dimensions from the report calculations.
    I found no real problem with the Lugano report convection calculations (method, etc.), ignoring their supposed temperature for the time being. They are better than the Levi report on the old E-cat (COP "5.6""), which has calculation problems and loose heat transfer coefficient assumptions.

  • I found no real problem with the Lugano report convection calculations (method, etc.), ignoring their supposed temperature for the time being. They are better than the Levi report on the old E-cat (COP "5.6""), which has calculation problems and loose heat transfer coefficient assumptions.



    This sentence is somewhat eratic! What did You calculate? A new COP ?